After four decades of rising government spending to
treat the effects of broken families, a cultural shift in attitudes
toward marriage is evident across America. Elected officials,
social scientists, community leaders, and policymakers across the
ideological spectrum are admitting that strong marriages--not
government intervention--are key to improving social and personal
well-being. Increasingly, research is showing that children in
married families are healthier, perform better in school, live in
poverty less frequently, and are involved in crime or other
destructive behaviors less often. But as marriages fail, social
problems and social spending to deal with those problems
increase.
Although America has invested $8.4
trillion in social programs since the War on Poverty began in the
1960s,1 welfare dependency,
juvenile crime, child abuse, school underachievement, drug abuse,
suicide among children, and many other problems have increased. At
the same time, federal and state governments still spend about $150
billion each year subsidizing single-parent families.2 This stands in stark contrast to the
approximately $150 million they spend each year in an effort to
reduce out-of-wedlock births and divorce--the two principal causes
of single-parent families in America.3
In
other words, for every $1,000 that government spends providing
services to broken families, it spends $1 trying to stop family
breakdown. All society receives in return for this lopsided
"investment" is more of what it subsidizes--broken families,
troubled children, and social problems. An analysis of the data
shows that:
Recognizing that federal welfare spending
has played a perverse role by giving poor parents an incentive not
to marry after having a child, Congress took unprecedented action
in 1996. It passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, historic
legislation reforming the welfare system. Under P.L. 104-193,
states are able to use a portion of their federal Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) surplus funds--which
accumulate under the formula grant as they reduce their welfare
rolls--on programs that strengthen marriage and reduce divorce
among the poor.
However, only a few states have begun to
find ways to implement this mandate or to take steps of their own
to strengthen marriage. For example,
-
In March 2000, the governor of
Oklahoma earmarked 10 percent of the state's TANF surplus
funds for an initiative to reduce divorce by one-third by 2010.
-
In April 2000, the governor of
Arizona signed a marriage initiative authorizing the state
to spend $1 million to develop community-based marriage skills
courses.
- In 1998, the governor of Florida
signed the Marriage Preparation and Preservation Act, making the
teaching of marriage skills a part of the high school curriculum.
The act also encourages premarital preparation by reducing the
marriage license fee by 50 percent for those who complete a
marriage preparation course.
The
effort to strengthen marriage is growing at the grassroots level,
and several privately run programs are already showing profound
effects. The communities and congregations that have adopted them
are reporting fewer divorces and stronger marriages, as well as
more teenagers pledging to abstain from sexual relations before
marriage. These programs offer federal and state policymakers clear
guideposts for reforming public policy in ways that will increase
marriage and decrease divorce and out-of-wedlock births. For
example,
-
Marriage Savers, a set of
church-based programs to help engaged couples, stepfamilies, and
marriages in trouble, is helping to reduce divorce rates by up to
30 percent at the city level and virtually eliminating divorce at
the parish level.
-
In over 135 cities around the country
where Community Marriage Covenants have been signed by
clergy, congregations, and civic leaders, divorce rates are falling
dramatically. In Modesto, California, for example, the divorce rate
has plummeted 47.6 percent since 1986, when 95 pastors signed
America's first Community Marriage Policy.5
- In Washington, D.C., the Best
Friends program has led to reductions of up to 90 percent in
the number of out-of-wedlock births among its teenage
members.6
Rather than throwing more funds at
government programs that deal with the effects of family breakdown,
federal and state officials should take steps to prevent family
disintegration in the first place. The federal government can
continue to offer incentives, flexibility, mandates, and money to
urge the states to act; but as Representative Nancy L. Johnson
(R-CT), former chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on
Human Resources, wrote in a letter to state governors,
Although we have provided $20 million
bonuses to five states that reduced their illegitimacy rates, we
need to learn much more about actions which government can take to
reduce births outside marriage or, equally important, to promote
marriage.7
For
its part, Congress should build on its historic reform of the
welfare system and work with the executive branch to reduce the
marriage penalty in the tax code and adjust the earned income tax
credit (EITC) so that married low-income couples with children
receive a somewhat larger benefit than the one given single
parents.
The
states also have a large role to play. They are the natural
laboratories in which the best practices for increasing marriage
and decreasing divorce are already emerging.
Increasing the incidence of marriage and
reducing the incidence of divorce are reasonable and necessary
policy goals. The future of millions of American children will
depend on policymakers' success in achieving them.
Why Emphasizing Marriage is Good
Public Policy
Social science literature is replete with
robust findings on the harmful effects of broken families,
particularly for children. Juvenile crime,8 abuse and violence,9 and lowered income are often associated
in the research with single-parent families (see Charts
1-5).10 Children born out of
wedlock have an increased risk of death in infancy, higher
incidence of retarded cognitive and verbal development, and higher
rates of drug addiction and out-of-wedlock pregnancy as
teens.11 As adults, they have
higher rates of divorce, work at lower-wage jobs, and abuse their
children more often.12
Divorce also has particularly troubling
consequences. Studies show that household income for women and
children is more likely to drop below the poverty level immediately
following a divorce,13 declining by as much as 50 percent
and causing substantial reductions in earnings capability and
long-term wealth.14 Compared
with children in intact families, children of divorced parents:
-
Have higher rates of crime, drug use,
child abuse, and child neglect;
-
Perform poorly on reading, spelling, and
math tests, and repeat grades and drop out of high school and
college more frequently;
-
Have higher incidences of behavioral,
emotional, physical, and psychiatric problems, including depression
and suicide; and
- Have an increased probability of divorce
as adults and cohabit more frequently.15
Such
effects are not isolated; they set in motion a downward cycle of
dysfunctional behavior and despair that compounds the problems for
their own children and future generations of children. In economic
terms, divorce reduces both the capital and the rate of return at
an accelerating rate. The cost to society is exorbitant: One social
scientist has estimated that "the "aggregate burden of crime" alone
on American society approaches $1 trillion annually.16 Policymakers who hope to stop this
societal fall must look instead at ways to reduce divorce and
out-of-wedlock birth by strengthening marriage.
Missed Opportunities
The
revolution that began with the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 has
succeeded in reducing the numbers of people on the welfare rolls.
The language of the act stipulates that states receiving federal
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families money must implement
welfare-to-work programs that limit benefits to five years while
helping recipients make the difficult transition to work. In
addition, to eliminate the incentive to maximize welfare benefits
by avoiding marriage, Congress strengthened funding for abstinence
programs and instructed the states to use some of their TANF
surplus funds to strengthen marriage among their recipients. Three
of the four statements of purpose in the legislation specify as
goals the formation of marriage and the reduction of out-of-wedlock
births (see box on page 7).
Even
though the intent and spirit of the welfare reform law are clear,
only a few states have taken legislative action since 1996 to
strengthen marriage, and only the governor of Oklahoma has used his
office to ensure that TANF money is being spent on programs that
strengthen marriage. The amount of public money dedicated to these
state-based projects, however, is small.
These funds are available because the
states continue to receive their formula grant money from
Washington even as their welfare reforms are working to reduce
their rolls. Some of this surplus is earmarked for other new
welfare initiatives, but at least $2.2 billion of the $6.9 billion
total is available for initiatives that promote marriage and reduce
divorce among the poor.18
To
reduce the harmful effects of out-of-wedlock births and divorce and
encourage marriage, Washington should establish an oversight
mechanism for evaluating how the states are using their TANF
surplus funds. Accountability is key to improving service. The
federal government has a responsibility to ensure that "best
practices" are being followed.
|
How the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 Encourages
Marriage
Public Law 104-193, which block grants Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families funds to the states, encourages the states to
strengthen marriage and reduce out-of-wedlock births by stipulating
that:
The purpose [of this legislation]…is to increase the
flexibility of States in operating a program designed to:
-
provide assistance to needy families
so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in
the homes of relatives;
-
end the dependence of needy parents
on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and
marriage;
-
prevent and reduce the incidence
of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical
goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these
pregnancies; and
- encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent
families.1
1. Public Law 104-193, Section 103, Block
Grants to States for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(emphasis added).
|
How the States are Implementing
Marriage-Based Policies
The
various ways by which states have begun to implement marriage-based
policies to reduce out-of-wedlock births and divorce are showing
promise. They offer other states and the federal government clear
models on which to base policies that strengthen marriage and
reduce the costly and damaging effects of family breakdown.
Arizona
In April 2000, Governor Jane Dee Hull (R) signed into law a
marriage initiative authorizing the state to spend $1 million of
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds each year to
devleop community-based marriage skills courses each year to
develop community-based marriage skills courses for low-income
couples and a media campaign promoting marriage.19 The state Covenant Marriage legislation
was signed into law on May 21, 1998.
Arkansas
Governor Mike Huckabee (R) hopes to reduce the divorce rate by
50 percent by 2010 and is a proponent of a state Marriage Covenant
law.20 His strategy is based
on his belief that all decision-making should be made at the lowest
level of government possible; in the case of welfare policy, this
should be the county level. It is a strategy that relies heavily on
churches, since pastors officiate at 75 percent of the weddings in
Arkansas.
The
governor's efforts to promote marriage range from posting
information on Community Marriage policies on his official Web
site21 to urging pastors,
congregations, and civic leaders to form Community Marriage
Covenants as a way to encourage couples to participate in marriage
preparation programs and find help if their marriages are
troubled.22 Huckabee has
considered pursuing a $100 tax credit for those taking pre-marriage
courses; it is estimated that the annual cost to the state if every
marrying couple took such a course and applied for the credit would
be about $4 million.23
Chesterfield County, Virginia, and Cobb
County, Georgia, already offer such programs. Chesterfield County
offers marriage education classes, and a county mental health
worker has been trained in marriage skills. The seven-year old
program, which is subsidized by state, local, and federal funding,
is offered to couples at any stage of their relationship and is
always full. Cobb County offers marriage education courses through
the county family court offices. The courses are funded by juror
fee contributions and volunteers.
Huckabee also is urging county officials
who oversee the disbursement of TANF funds and surplus TANF revenue
to develop initiatives that encourage marriage and reduce divorce.
The charitable choice provisions in federal welfare law24 for example, would permit religious
organizations to compete without prejudice for contracts to serve
the poor in their areas of expertise, be it job seeking, job
training, child care, drug counseling, or any service that helps
welfare recipients become self-sufficient.
Florida
In 1998, Florida became the first state to make learning
marriage skills a part of the high school curriculum when Governor
Lawton Chiles (D) signed the Florida Marriage Preparation and
Preservation Act. The act encourages premarital preparation by
reducing the marriage license fee by 50 percent for those who take
a marriage preparation course before they wed. In Leon County, 32
percent of couples are now taking pre-marriage courses,25 mainly within their churches.
Otherwise, the 1998 initiative has borne little fruit because
loopholes in the law make it easy to avoid changing the education
curriculum.
Louisiana. The early leader in the state
pro-marriage movement, Louisiana set off a national debate in
August 1997 by enacting a law that permits "covenant
marriages,"26 whereby couples
promise to stay married for life and renounce their legal right to
a no-fault divorce. The state's no-fault divorce requirement is to
wait 180 days before filing for a no-fault divorce. Covenant
marriage couples agree instead that, should they have problems,
they will separate for a minimum of two years and seek marital
counseling before applying for a divorce.
The
covenant marriage law has not been implemented effectively. Because
county clerks rarely advise couples applying for a license about
the law, few people in Louisiana are aware of it, and a very low
proportion of couples have elected it. Not surprisingly, those who
have done so were already at low risk for divorce.27
In
early 2000, the legislature passed a resolution urging the governor
to appoint a council on marriage that would develop, monitor, and
evaluate marriage policy, programs, curricula, publicity, and the
delivery of services to families to ensure that the state is not
undermining or discouraging marriage in any way.
Oklahoma
Oklahoma has taken the legislative lead in state-based efforts
to strengthen marriage. In June 1999, Governor Frank Keating (R)
convened the Governor's and First Lady's Conference on Marriage,
bringing together leaders from the business community, religious
congregations, education, and government, as well as service
providers and the media, to forge the nation's first state action
plan for reducing divorce. In March 2000, Keating announced an
innovative $10 million marriage initiative earmarking 10 percent of
the state's TANF surplus funds for efforts to strengthen marriage
and reduce divorce.
Governor Keating also announced the goal
of reducing the state's divorce rate by one-third by 2010. In 1999,
the state took steps to eliminate the disadvantage in the way
income is calculated for married stepparents compared with
cohabiting partners. Similar changes were made in the way the state
calculates eligibility for child-care benefits. There are now fewer
incentives for low-income or welfare couples to live together
outside of marriage in order to collect higher benefits.
Other elements of the Oklahoma initiative
include:
-
The establishment of a marriage resource
center to provide information on marriage and mentors to
couples;
-
A public education campaign on the
importance of marriage;
-
An outreach program to change the
attitudes of youth about marriage;
-
An effort to promote Community Marriage
Policies and develop community-based marriage-strengthening
programs with pastors;
-
Funding a one-year scholar-in-residence
chair at Oklahoma State University, to be filled by a nationally
respected expert on marriage;
-
Regular statewide marriage
conferences;
-
Training for state workers, such as
agricultural extension service workers and public health nurses, to
help them teach marriage skills courses at the community level;
-
An improved data-gathering system to
document marriages and divorces in the state; and
- Partnerships with faith-based and charity
groups on programs that strengthen families.
Utah
Under the leadership of Governor Michael Leavitt, efforts to
rebuild marriage within the state are mounting. In 1998, Governor
Leavitt organized a Governor's Commission on Marriage to identify
programs and tools that could strengthen marriage. In late February
2001, the state followed Oklahoma's lead and earmarked $600,000 of
its TANF surplus funds for the promotion of marriage education over
the next two years. The legislature also formed a Marriage
Commission two years ago and raised the minimum marriage age from
14 to 16. Governor Leavitt presides over an annual Marriage Week
each February, and regional marriage conferences featuring the
governor and his wife are hosted around the state.
Utah
promotes marriage education in its 105 high schools, adding a
marriage component to the civics class, "Adult Roles and
Responsibilities." It also conducts teacher education in marriage
issues through continuing education conferences featuring top
marriage experts, such as David Olson of the University of
Minnesota, who developed the first and most widely used
pre-marriage assessment instruments.
Wisconsin
The Wisconsin legislature has designated $210,000 in unspent
TANF funds in 2001-2002 for a Community Marriage Policy project,
which will work with members of the clergy to develop clear
community-wide "standards" for marriage. Wisconsin is the first
state to fund a full-time worker whose job is to create Community
Marriage Policies. The American Civil Liberties Union successfully
challenged an earlier legislative attempt that focused on church
initiatives to restore marriage. The reworded legislation now
includes judges and magistrates, who also officiate at marriages,
and it should withstand a court challenge.
Other States
Summits similar to Utah's that involve stakeholders in
business, health care, education, counseling, clergy, social work,
media, and marriage education have been held in Arkansas, Iowa,
Kansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma.
In
2000, the Maryland and Minnesota legislatures passed laws that
would establish programs to encourage marriage education, but these
bills were vetoed by the states' respective governors--Parris
Glendening (D) and Jesse Ventura (Ind.).
In
Maryland, Governor Glendening praised the intent of a pre-marriage
counseling bill that would have reduced the marriage license fee,
saying that "educating individuals about the demands and realities
of marriage and parenthood is a laudable and worthwhile
goal,"28 but still vetoed it.
The original sponsors, Delegates John R. Leopold (R-Anne
Arundel)29 and Kenneth
Montague (D-Baltimore),30 revised the bill to specify the
qualifications of those who can teach the course--social workers,
psychologists, and specially trained religious leaders--thereby
satisfying the key special interests affected.
Ironically, though the data show that
domestic violence is much lower among married couples, advocates
against domestic violence have already captured most of the
marriage license money. Of the $55 fee for a marriage license, $45
now goes toward reducing domestic violence; only $10 is left for a
discount on the cost of the pre-marriage course.
In
Minnesota, Senator Steve Dille (R) has re-introduced a bill31 under which couples who take a 12-hour
course of premarital education would be granted a $55 waiver on
their marriage license fees. In reshaping and resubmitting the
bill, the sponsors have consulted widely with county clerks in an
effort to avoid the governor's veto.
Private Marriage-Based Initiatives
Increasingly, liberal and conservative
policy analysts agree that divorce and out-of-wedlock births have
long-lasting detrimental effects on women, children, and society;
but evidence is growing in the private sector that government can
help to reverse this pattern. By studying and applying what is
already working in the states and local communities--the
laboratories of effective public policy--it should be possible to
reduce the divorce rate by as much as one-third to one-half in a
few short years. The most important elements of such an effort are
(1) good program outcome data with which to identify the best
practices in the different fields and (2) the will to apply the
findings to federal, state, and local policies and programs.
Several non-governmental programs appear
to reduce divorce significantly and to drive down the numbers of
out-of-wedlock births while increasing marriage. Communities that
have established Marriage Savers congregations and Community
Marriage Covenants are demonstrating the most success in decreasing
divorce.32 The strategy: Help
churches train mentors for engaged couples who can help them
prepare for a life-long marriage commitment and help counsel
marriages in trouble. Congregations with such mentors have helped
up to 90 percent of troubled married couples who have come
forward.
Marriage Savers started its first
Community Marriage Covenant in Modesto, California, in 1986. A
full-service program should incorporate seven key church
activities:
-
A minimum of four months' preparation
before marriage;
-
A pre-marriage assessment of the couple's
individual opinions on significant issues, such as finances and
child-rearing, using such inventories as PREPARE33 and FOCCUS.34 Answers to the surveys become the
basis for discussion during the marriage preparation
classes.35
-
Training for mentoring couples in how to
use inventory results to facilitate discussion about issues on
which the couple agrees and disagrees.
-
A program to strengthen existing
marriages, such as Marriage Encounter,36 Marriage Alive,37 or Family Builders. 38
-
A program to help troubled marriages,
whether an established one such as Retrouvaille39 or one that uses couples in the
congregation who have undergone marriage counseling successfully.
In Rockford, Illinois, the First Assembly of God trained 14
"back-from-the-brink" couples in their church to work with troubled
marriages. Local therapists learned about this "Marriage Ministry"
and sent dozens of their toughest cases to the First Assembly. In
three years, First Assembly's mentors have met with more than 100
married couples headed for divorce and have saved all but four of
them.40
-
Mentoring for stepfamilies. According to
federal survey data, 20 percent of American children were living
with stepparents in 1995.41 Rev. Dick Dunn of Roswell United
Methodist Church near Atlanta created a Stepfamily Support Group
led by stepfamily couples who had learned to make a truly blended
family. Four out of five participating couples have kept their
marriages intact over the study period--a result almost twice the
normal outcome for stepfamilies.
- Ministry to separated couples. There are
many ways to improve the chances of reconciliation for separated
couples, as the work of Joe and Michele Williams in a program
called Reconciling God's Way shows. The couple report that the
program has helped over 70 percent of those who were separated to
come together again in marriage.42
A
few pastors and congregations have implemented all seven of these
elements in their parishes.43
Over
135 cities have signed Community Marriage Covenants to
motivate Marriage Saver congregations and civic leaders to rally
communities behind efforts to strengthen marriage. In the fall of
1999 alone, Charleston, West Virginia; Baton Rouge and Alexandria,
Louisiana; Fairfield, Connecticut; Wausau, Wisconsin; Flower Mound,
Texas; and Harrisonburg, Virginia, all became Community Marriage
Covenant cities. Earlier that year, Jamestown, New York, and Toms
River, New Jersey, became their states' first cities to organize
such networks.
Many
cities with Community Marriage Covenants report reductions of up to
47 percent in their divorce rates.44 For example, a covenant was signed
by 95 pastors in Modesto, California, in 1986. Since then, the
divorce rate has plunged 47.6 percent, while marriages have climbed
9.8 percent.45 In some
cities, the divorce rates have declined 20 times faster than the
national rate of 1.3 percent rate.46
The
dramatic difference in divorce rates between Kansas City, Kansas,
which has a Marriage Saver program, and Kansas City, Missouri,
which does not, demonstrates the effects of marriage-based
strategies.
-
In Kansas City, Kansas, and its suburbs,
the number of divorces has plunged 32.5 percent--from 1,530 to
1,001--in just two years, while the number of marriages has
remained virtually unchanged. Only 40 pastors--a small fraction of
the number of clergy in the two-county area--had signed the
Community Marriage Policy, but The Kansas City Star had
published a number of stories about the initiative.
- Meanwhile, just across the river, the
number of divorces actually rose over the same two years for the
metropolitan area that includes Kansas City, Missouri, and its
suburbs--from 3,586 to 3,725.
The
difference: All of the clergy participating in the Community
Marriage Covenant and all of the stories written about the
initiative were in Kansas, not Missouri. One state developed a
visibly pro-marriage climate; the other plodded along without
changing attitudes or expectations.47 This is powerful evidence of the
effectiveness of pro-marriage policies. Officials in every state
should encourage community leaders to establish and expand Marriage
Savers programs.
Focused Thinking Mediation, a
program that in South Africa has helped as many as 50 percent of
couples seeking divorce decide to remain married,48 is now operating in Southern
Michigan's family courts. The courts have used Focused Thinking
Mediation for their most acrimonious post-divorce cases, which
represent an average of 20 court dockets per couple per year and on
average stayed before the court for 2.25 years. Of the 26 couples
who have participated in the course, all but two have reached
amicable agreements and have not returned to the courts.49 The results are so impressive that
the courts may soon begin using the program in pre-divorce
cases.
Lawyer and social worker Stan
Posthumus,50 who developed
and refined Focused Thinking Mediation during the 1990s, is hoping
to help couples who have filed for divorce come to terms with less
conflict and animosity. Trained mediators, who could be lawyers,
social workers, or other mediators, would work with a couple to
help them begin to communicate more effectively, usually for the
first time in years. If the experience in South Africa is any
indication, many couples will reconsider their decision to divorce
and decide instead to rebuild their marriages based on clear
communication and agreement.
State and local officials should consider
sponsoring Focused Thinking Mediation institutes to train and
credential private- and public-sector mediators. The direct
benefits to the states would include fewer divorces and lower
demand for services; reduced court costs; and fewer women and
children falling into poverty.
A
program run by the Best Friends Foundation51 in Washington, D.C., has reduced
out-of-wedlock births among its members by as much as 90 percent
and has led about the same percentage of teenage participants to
pledge that they will remain sexually abstinent until marriage.
Early initiation of sexual intercourse in teens reduces the
likelihood of stable marriage later on and increases the likelihood
of multiple sexual partners and sexually transmitted diseases,
out-of-wedlock births, and abortions.
This
school-based voluntary and volunteer-run mentoring program for
girls begins in the fifth grade. It encourages the girls to
articulate their goals and to support each other as they try to
reach those goals. Because out-of-wedlock pregnancy and birth can
derail a girl's best intentions, especially among girls in poor
communities where married family life is not the norm, such support
is vital.
The
results are impressive: Only 1 percent of program participants
became pregnant during a period of about eight years (from the
inception of the program to the year of its evaluation), and 90
percent have remained sexually abstinent. For teenagers in an
inner-city environment in which the overall teen pregnancy rate can
range from 80 percent to 90 percent, this is a remarkable
achievement.52
The National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI) is
a seven-year-old program that is proving to be very effective in
motivating fathers to become more active in their families. Over a
four-year period starting in May 1996, the NFI spent $800,000 on a
television campaign encouraging fathers to be more involved with
their children and families. The campaign garnered 187 times that
amount ($130 million) in donated TV air time. In Virginia, the
campaign spent $200,000 over an 18-month period, and with
impressive results: One in three people recalled the ads; 40,000
fathers changed their activities to spend more time with their
children; and 100,000 people became more supportive of the role of
fathers or agreed to take a father's place when he was not
available.53
Marriage Preparation Courses
Research-based inventories of compatibility for marriage, such
as PREP,54 FOCCUS, and REFOCCUS,
have been used extensively in marriage preparation and
revitalization programs at the parish level for many years. These
assessments help couples improve their relationships by getting
them to discuss potential areas of conflict--like managing finances
and having children--and actions that could create anger or
alienation. These courses and tools, as well as programs like
PAIRS,55 Relationship
Enhancement,56 and others,57 help couples learn such skills as
problem solving, listening, and effective forms of communicating
that can strengthen their relationship.
How to
Encourage Marriage and Discourage Divorce
Though cultural attitudes, social science
findings, and social policies have begun to recognize the
importance of supporting marriage and decreasing the incidence of
divorce, the policies and activities of state governments are still
biased against marriage. This bias amplifies the damage caused by
decades of misguided federal welfare policy that has virtually
eliminated marriage among the poor and federal tax policy that is
penalizing marriage. Regardless of whether additional welfare
reform is passed at the federal level, states can alter the way
they spend their revenue, administer their programs, collect data
and conduct research, select high school curricula, enact laws, and
even talk about marriage.
Promoting Marriage
Like
Oklahoma, Arkansas, and the other states that are implementing
marriage-based policies, the remaining states should begin to focus
their efforts on reducing divorce and out-of-wedlock births and
increasing marriage. Among the specific steps they can take are the
following:
-
Set a goal of reducing out-of-wedlock
births and divorce by 33 percent in each state by 2010
Based on the success of various initiatives already in place
around the country, such a goal is both realistic and attainable.
All that is needed is to harness each state's unique resources to
design programs that would best address their needs.
-
Make a concerted effort to use TANF
surplus revenues on programs that increase marriage and decrease
divorce among the poor
As noted, there are many resources and much expertise around
the country that, if harnessed, could improve couples' prospects of
entering a solid marriage. A strong case can be made for creating a
state Office of Marriage Initiatives to encourage marriage and
discourage divorce, particularly among the poor or near poor, and
reduce the burden on taxpayers.58
Such an office should identify effective marriage-based policies
and programs and assure that the state is using its TANF surplus
funds in ways that actually decrease divorce and out-of-wedlock
birth among the poor. The charitable choice provision in the TANF
legislation would apply to such spending. Charitable choice would
permit faith-based organizations to compete with other non-faith
based groups for funding support without prejudice and be judged on
the basis of effectiveness alone.
-
Allocate state welfare funds to reward
counties that reduce out-of-wedlock births and divorce
Just as the federal government rewards states that perform well
in reducing out-of-wedlock birth rates,59 the states should reward counties that
achieve a significant decrease in the number of out-of-wedlock
births and divorces. However, the states should learn from the
federal government's experience and make sure that the counties
being rewarded are those that have shown the ability to devise a
workable plan, not just those that randomly achieve a reduction in
out-of-wedlock births. The more generous the rewards, the more
energetically counties will compete for them.
-
Make state tax laws more
marriage-friendly
Many states have a marriage penalty in their tax code. At a
minimum, every state should eliminate this penalty. States should
have a realistic estimate of the extra cost that broken family life
puts on the public purse, and those who save the state such costs
should receive better treatment in the tax code. A simple way to do
this would be to make the personal exemption higher for married
couples with dependent children under age 19 or in college.
-
Eliminate perverse incentives in state
laws that reward unmarried parents for having more children
To decrease the anti-marriage bias that proved so destructive
in the old welfare system, states should consider new benefits or
an expansion of current benefits for married couples on welfare. At
the time their child is born, 82 percent of unmarried mothers and
fathers are romantically involved, 44 percent are living together,
and over 70 percent of the mothers say their chances of marrying
the father are "50-50."60 The
long-term costs to society are immense for not making clear the
reasons these couples should marry.
-
Support initiatives to help troubled
marriages get back on track
Divorce is the primary reason women and children fall into
poverty.61 Many organizations have
established programs to strengthen troubled marriages, such as
Retrouvaille,62 Marriage
Encounter,63 Marriage Savers, and
Focused Thinking Mediation. Making these programs accessible to the
poor or the nearly poor would be a key task for a state Office of
Marriage Initiatives.
-
Encourage the work of churches and
faith-based organizations in poor areas
Few Americans realize the extent to which marriage has
disappeared among the poor: In the lowest income quintile, 74
percent of families with children were headed by a single parent in
1996.64 In large part, this is the
result of such government programs as welfare, with incentives that
penalize marriage, and family planning programs that support sexual
activity and childbearing without regard to marital status.65 Because of the effectiveness of
churches in strengthening marriages, churches in poor areas are
probably government's most effective allies in efforts to decrease
divorce and increase marriage in communities beleaguered by the
effects of family breakdown. Public officials cannot do the work of
churches and the private sector in rebuilding the institutions of
marriage and family, but they can encourage their efforts to
increase marriage. They also can focus public attention on the need
to support two-parent families. This approach would help to change
the cultural discourse and climate in their states.
-
Ensure that government personnel support a
marriage initiative
For public policy to increase the incidence of marriage and
decrease the incidence of divorce, officials at all levels of
government must fully support the effort. Governors and state
legislators should utilize county clerks who process marriage
licenses, as well as welfare workers, school counselors, and public
health and school nurses who interact with young mothers, to
encourage participation in marriage preparation and skills classes.
Workers in such programs as agriculture extension services and
mental health units can be trained to teach effective skills at the
local level. Personnel who ignore or block good policy should be
educated about the problem or replaced.
- Create incentives for couples to
participate in pre-marriage preparation classes before receiving a
marriage license
For example, Florida offers a discount on a marriage license if
the couple takes a four-hour marriage preparation class with a
segment on the effects of divorce as well as how to get a divorce.
Minnesota, Maryland, and other states have legislation pending that
would similarly encourage pre-marital preparation courses.
Government action in this area needs to be
prudent because issues of personal freedom in making intimate
decisions, as well as the protection of the common good, are at
stake.
|
Answering
Objections to
Having the Government Promote Marriage
Objection: Critics like Don Bloch, past president of the
American Family Therapy Academy, object to using welfare funds to
promote marriage: "It is really taking money away from those at the
thin edge, people who have a whole range of needs, health,
nutrition, housing…." Others say it is unfair to use TANF
money in ways that would help people who are not welfare
recipients.
Response: The duty of government is to protect and foster
the common good. For the past 35 years, government has played a
major role in the destruction of marriage among the poor by
subsidizing out-of-wedlock birth. To redress the effects of this
policy, future spending should target programs to restore marriage
among the poor. In the process, families in the middle- and
upper-income brackets may be persuaded to avoid out-of-wedlock
births and to prepare more diligently for marriage. Preventing
divorces in low- and middle-income families is preventing poverty,
and that is good public policy.
Objection: Government has no business promoting
marriage.
Response: As Governor Keating of Oklahoma has said,
"[W]hen you look at the consequences of divorce, the better
question is: 'What business do we have not getting involved?'" Good
government has a critical interest in stable marriages. The
consequence of decades of misguided policy is a culture of
ambivalence toward commitment, with devastating effects on
children. The common good relies on the stability of family life,
which is premised on the stability of marriage. To the extent that
marriage breaks down, public order decreases, public costs
increase, and the need for government controls to contain the
resulting problems increases. Restoration of marriage is the most
cost-effective way to reduce the tax burden for social programs and
improve the welfare of children and the poor.
|
Educating the Public
Just
as the law can serve a teaching function, the communication of
traditional universal values in the public forum can uplift public
opinion and popular culture. In this respect, state officials can
pursue strategies that would advance the importance of marriage as
an institution. Specifically:
-
Set definite
goals for decreasing divorce
States can follow the lead of Oklahoma and Arkansas by
setting a goal for reducing divorce and out-of-wedlock births by
2010. This would send a clear message to the citizens of the state
as well as the state bureaucracy that increasing marriage is a
priority at all levels of government.
-
Launch public
information campaigns in print and on television and radio
One of the advantages of being a public leader is the
ability to change ideas and motivate people to become involved in a
worthwhile campaign. Speeches become tools for advancing public
policy and changing a culture of rejection to a culture of
commitment. Television campaigns have a similar effect, as such
public-private sector initiatives as the one between the National
Fatherhood Initiative and the Commonwealth of Virginia have
shown.
- Create brochures
that summarize the authoritative research on the effects
of divorce and out-of-wedlock births and on the benefits of
marriage,66 sexual abstinence
before marriage, and adoption. These brochures should also point
out the legal and financial consequences for those who father a
child out of wedlock. Such pamphlets could be distributed in
schools, welfare offices, parole offices, public health facilities,
parishes, and private organizations to generate a healthy debate on
these serious issues. Experts in family research should be tasked
with creating these brochures, which could become the basis for a
pre-marriage test as suggested above.
States should make every effort to inform
women of the consequences of out-of-wedlock births. This should be
targeted to women between the ages of 20 and 35. Women between the
ages of 20 and 40 are responsible for roughly 75 percent of all
out-of-wedlock births and 82 percent of those who have a second
child out of wedlock, which is most likely to lock a woman into
long-term poverty. A public awareness campaign on the effects of
out-of-wedlock births on the mother and her child would be a
constructive use of TANF surplus funds.
-
Convene a state
conference on marriage and the family
Governor Keating's conference on marriage brought together
key players from the media, medicine, law, education, government,
and the clergy to focus on the effects of out-of-wedlock births and
divorce on the state. As a result, many participants became
stakeholders in the effort to reduce divorce and increase marriage.
In Albuquerque, New Mexico, State Senator Mark Boitano (R) was
instrumental in convening a marriage conference in October
2000.67 Such conferences focus
attention on the problems and motivate people in all sectors of
society to reverse the effects of broken families and rebuild a
culture of family love and commitment.
- Create a
marriage research center
Good statistics are needed for effective planning,
education, and evaluation of state initiatives. A research center
that provides reliable up-to-date data should track marriages,
divorces, and out-of-wedlock births in the state. State officials
should be able to use these data to understand where the problems
and needs are the greatest. The center should also track how the
state compares with other states in increasing marriage and
decreasing divorce.
In addition, the center should analyze and
provide data on the relationship between family structure and
juvenile crime, homicide, suicide, out-of-wedlock births,
abortions, poverty, drug use among juveniles, educational
attainment, employment, and unemployment in the state. Quantifying
these issues would help lawmakers target policy and funds to
efforts to reduce such costly social problems.
- Foster scholar-in-residence positions
at state universities
These scholars in psychology, sociology, economics, or the law
should be tasked with tracking what is working best to increase
stable marriage and decrease divorce in the state. The legislature
could help to increase scholarship in the areas of marriage and the
family by awarding prizes to undergraduate seniors for the best
review in the sociology or psychology literature on marriage or
divorce. The value need not be high: A $20,000 grant would generate
needed work in this area as well as interest in this field among
social science students.
Changing State Law
Today, laws and government policies
provide virtually no protection for the institution of marriage.
The damaging effects of "no fault" divorces have become so clear
that today there are only 17 pure "no fault" states.68
Legislators considering changing their
divorce laws should consider the full range of legal options
available to them, such as those compiled by Americans for Divorce
Reform and posted on their Internet "Divorce Reform Page"69 This site presents arguments for and
against the initiatives as well as model legislation.
Several proposals could help to slow state
divorce rates. Specifically:
-
Require agreement before filing for
divorce. Married couples who have minor children should be
required to complete divorce education and a mediated co-parenting
plan before they can file for divorce. Divorce education could help
some of these couples resolve their problems and save their
marriages. It is most effective early in the divorce process.
Requiring a co-parenting plan would enable the couple to develop a
more realistic picture of what life will be like after divorce, and
this could lead some couples to renew their efforts to save their
marriage.
-
Require mediation before divorce.
Married couples with minor children should be required to
participate in mediation classes before their case is brought
before the court. The Office of Child Support Enforcement of the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services also reports good
results from mediation.70
-
End "no-fault" divorce for parents with
children under age 18.71
No-fault divorce is a meaningless term for the children whose
parents divorce. Lawmakers in Arizona, California, Georgia, Kansas,
Massachusetts, Montana, Virginia, Texas, and Washington have
introduced legislation to require mutual consent for a no-fault
divorce. In the absence of such consent, the spouse petitioning for
divorce has to prove the other spouse's "fault." This may make
sense for childless couples, but the welfare of children under 18
should be the threshold for all other couples, who should have to
prove that grave harm would be visited upon the children by the
continuance of the marriage.
- Make Covenant Marriages a legal
option. Couples should be able to commit to lifelong marriages
if they so desire by agreeing to strict requirements for separation
or divorce. The effect of such a commitment would be salutary, and
the emphasis it places on the seriousness of the marriage
commitment would strengthen the ideal of marriage in society.
Couples should undergo serious preparation before making such a
commitment, however, since it would carry the force of law. Too
many individuals marry with the intention of staying married until
death, only to find out that their spouse had no such intention. In
Covenant Marriages, couples sign a marriage contract that lengthens
the process for obtaining a divorce by two years. Louisiana and
Arizona have enacted Covenant Marriage laws, and Oklahoma, Oregon,
and Texas have considered them. (In at least 25 other states, such
legislation has been introduced and is moving through the system.
Some of the states are considering ways to improve the
concept.)
Changing School Curricula
School curricula reflect what the state
wishes children to know for the common good. Emphasizing marriage
clearly should fall within this area, since the decline of marriage
imposes great costs on society, and marriage has many benefits for
individual family members.72 To
that extent, public school curricula should:
-
Include marriage preparation courses at
the high school level. Utah and Florida have passed legislation
to include marriage curricula in high school coursework. By taking
courses on basic marriage skills, adolescents will be better
prepared to make some of the biggest decisions in their lives. The
success of such a course obviously will depend on both content and
teacher, of course. To prevent it from being co-opted to support
another agenda, legislators should mandate in law that the content
of the curriculum supports traditional marriage. They can build the
content of the course on research already conducted by such experts
as Professors Scott M. Stanley and Howard Markman of the University
of Denver73 and David Olson of the
University of Minnesota.
- Promote and expand teen chastity
programs. Federal money for chastity education can be
supplemented by TANF funds. Reducing the number of teens who are
sexually active has a dramatic effect on the out-of-wedlock birth
rate. The Best Friends program in Washington, D.C., has found this
to be the case.74
Conclusion
A
cultural shift is occurring that bodes well for America's children.
After four decades of treating society's ills with more government
spending, elected officials, social scientists, community leaders,
and policymakers across the ideological spectrum admit that strong
marriages--not government largesse--are key to improving both
personal and social well-being. Social science research is showing
that children in married families are healthier, perform better in
school, and are involved less frequently in crime or other
destructive behaviors.
Much
has been done over the past few decades to understand the benefits
of marriage, and good programs exist to help couples prepare for
marriage. State and local officials should take advantage of what
the social science research and the records of "best practices"
programs teach. Divorce at community levels can be reduced by 30
percent through community programs to strengthen marriage.
Abstinence before marriage will increase with the right programs,
and proper attention on marriage in the media can help to change
cultural attitudes.
Together, public- and private-sector
leadership can join with the clergy begin this process, increasing
the incidence of marriage and strengthening families while reducing
the social problems that accompany family breakdown and
out-of-wedlock births. The goal is not small, but it is
increasingly more achievable.
--Patrick F. Fagan is the
William H. G. FitzGerald Senior Fellow in Family and Cultural
Issues at The Heritage Foundation.
PDF March 26, 2001 |
Executive Summary
|
|
